Administration moving the election day?

I hadn't heard about this till just yesterday, and don't remember seeing a thread here about it. Can someone fill me in? What i have heard is that Bush wants the power ot move the day of the election in case of a terrorist threat? Sounds to me like the first step on the road to TOO much power.

Last I heard they were looking into moving the election day if a terrorist attack actually happens, not just a threat. I think it's good they are looking into this, What happens if the terrorist stage an attack, many people wouldn't get out and vote and many votes that had been cast could be lost. then, once again, there would be many crying that it wasn't a fair election.

Its my opinion that there should be NO moving the Nov 4 election no matter what natural or unatural disaster should occur. Allowing the elections to be moved, postponed or delayed would give the terrorists (both here and abroad) open season to severely alter the elections. Also do you really think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if it were delayed? I say keep them Nov 4 come hell or high water. We didnt even alter the elections during the Civil War.

[ QUOTE ]
Also do you really think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if it were delayed?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason, I think it should even be considered to be delayed is a catastrophic attack on election day, that caused voters to not get out and vote, or let's say that caused most of a state's votes to be lost.

If in one of the cases I outlined above, do you think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if the elections weren't delayed/held again?

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason, I think it should even be considered to be delayed is a catastrophic attack on election day, that caused voters to not get out and vote, or let's say that caused most of a state's votes to be lost.

If in one of the cases I outlined above, do you think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if the elections weren't delayed/held again?

[/ QUOTE ]

I definately see your point but the problem is, who defines "a catastrophic attack" and once defined it would be an open door for terrorists, domestic or foreign, to implement such an attack and thereby be assured that their actions would certainly alter the elections nationwide.

The dept of homeland security and a new agency, the Federal Election Assistance Commission, wants it clarified who has that power, and would like to get that power. As far as I can tell, this is not an order from Bush, just from Bush appointees (many people automatically assume "appointees" means the pres is pulling thier strings, but that's often not the case according to history).
The head of the EAC (see above) has asked for clarification of this, not for any action yet.

I've seen it being horribly reported and rumoured to be a fact, when it's an inquiry. It's been tremendously compounded by the media as a terrible thing and the precursor to dictatorship or martial law takeover, but it's being handled pretty diplomatically and should not be able to elevate anyone's power.
Don't forget, the elections happen several months before any official is sworn into office. If they move the elections, they wouldn't be able to move them beyond inauguration dates, and the move would likely be by a week or so. Noone would gain any advantage by this, except in that there's more campaign time.
Noone could EVER constitutionally cancel an election.

The objective (as I percieve it) is to avoid having elections that would be massively influenced in the wake of a disaster, I.E. Madrid, and Spain voting in a new government through sheer emotional turmoil.
If another 9/11 type event occurred just before the election, it could cause someone unfit for office to get voted in by simple knee-jerk reaction, rather than voting for someone you've actually studied. Like anyone does that anyway... /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif I think what they're looking for is what they can do if a disaster occurs and the election would suffer severely as a result of the disaster.
This is just what I'm gathering, not what they actually said, though...

I've used the Patriot act as a comparitive example. Some senators said they voted for it without completely reading or understanding it. That kind of voting should NEVER happen, it defeats the purpose of voting.

[ QUOTE ]
Im talking about election day though, if there is a terrorist attack on Nov 4 I beleive we should go ahead with the election as planned. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

what if the attack disrupted the voting system though? I mean, say, for example, that 90% of people that wanted to vote in, oh, I dunno, Miami... couldn't vote for some terrorist-related reason. too bad so sad for them? what if it was an entire state? what if Washington DC gets nuked on Nov 3rd and neither side has a candidate who is alive? Im not saying any of these are likely... just that saying "dont change it under ANY circumstances" doesnt address all the possible circumstances...

[ QUOTE ]
The objective (as I percieve it) is to avoid having elections that would be massively influenced in the wake of a disaster, I.E. Madrid, and Spain voting in a new government through sheer emotional turmoil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you can pretty much count on terrorist activites happening on our soil, just before the election.
It worked in Spain, there is absolutly no reasson why they would not try it again, here.
It is after-all TERRORISM, which intends to terrorize people into acting or behaveing in a manner that they would not do otherwise. Which is why I may question moveing the election date, in-as-much-as it is acting out in a manner that we, the people, would not do otherwise.
The only act that terrorism should bring, is finding them and killing them.

I pray Bush is on the ball with this, as I'm sure he is.
Allthough, I'm afraid, I doubt there is much he, or anyone else for that matter, could do to prevent it.
It is incredibly difficult to track and find a enemy who hasn't acted-out yet.

Thank god Al-Quida is dismantled, that doesn't put an end to it, but it sure slows 'em down.

[ QUOTE ]
what if the attack disrupted the voting system though? I mean, say, for example, that 90% of people that wanted to vote in, oh, I dunno, Miami... couldn't vote for some terrorist-related reason. too bad so sad for them? what if it was an entire state? what if Washington DC gets nuked on Nov 3rd and neither side has a candidate who is alive? Im not saying any of these are likely... just that saying "dont change it under ANY circumstances" doesnt address all the possible circumstances...

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there are rules already in place to address these things, especially the death of a candidate. It would be virtually impossible for 90% of the polling places in Miami to be closed by a terrorist attack, there are many, many different polling places. My concern is this......the Dems have already started the ball rolling by attemting to declare an election not legit because the ballot was too "Confusing" and the polling places were too difficult to reach. This was in a time of peace in the most prosperous nation on earth! Now they are calling for the United Nations to come to the US to regulate the elections in 04. I firmly believe that all the political parties have zealots on the fringe of insanity that wouldnt hesitate for a moment to sway the elections if they knew they could. I also beleive that the instant the US would announce what event it would take to alter an election that there would be Jihadists planning an attack.

BTW.....I mis spoke earlier, the election is on Nov 2 not Nov 4. My sons BD is Nov 4 and he thought his birthday fell on election day this year but a quick look at the calendar and I see that is wrong /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It would be virtually impossible for 90% of the polling places in Miami to be closed by a terrorist attack, there are many, many different polling places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think "Improvised Nuclear Device".

Something as simple as several hundred pounds of conventional explosive (which obviously isn't hard to acquire if you're a terrorist...) packaged with some nuclear waste. Take said package off the ground to get an airburst (the top of a 20-story building will suffice. Or you can substitute an airplane for the 20-story building...). Detonate the conventional explosive, and you spread radioactive debris for quite a ways. Now what's the very first thing the 1st responders (cops, firemen, paramedics) and local gov't folks will say?
"RESIDENTS, PLEASE STAY IN YOUR HOMES WITH YOUR DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED!"
Which really is the best (and honestly, only) way for your average urban American to stay safe from a threat like that.

Or even worse, you could substitute a no-sh!t nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union... I believe bin Laden has gone on record stating his lust for a nuke...

Problem is there is no one in charge of setting the election dates due to extreame circunstances.

Most states have someone with authority to change the dates clearly written, but there is nothing like it for the federal govt.

If a major terrorism (or even natural accident) attack occurs on the east coast in the middle of the day, do you not think the entire country would be glued to their tv sets and in fear of what may happen next? How many people were thinking about anything substantial but terrorism on 9/11 ?

A wide spread nuclear attack is definately a possibility but not the most likely form of terrorism we would see on our soil. So far terrorists havent been able to use this type of device but I firmly believe they would if they could. I understand this problem doesnt have a cut and dried, black and white or right or wrong answer but I feel it would be very foolish to simply publicly state that if there is some sort of disaster on Nov 2, 2004 the USA will postpone the elections, I also feel it would be very foolish to state that if there is a disaster of said type or a distaster that effects said amount of people on Nov 2 that the USA will postpone elections. Its giving the enemy a game plan that is guaranteed to work if implemented successfully. On the other hand, if the US publicly states that we will hold our elections on Nov 2 unconditionally and under no circumstances will we postpone them due to a terrorist attack...I believe that sends the right message to the terrorists.

Not to be an alarmist, but... I believe a nuclear event is a real possibility within the U.S., and I believe it's possible today, tomorrow, or next year. Islam's core fundamentals teach patience until the opportune time to destroy your enemy the best way you can.

"Dirty bombs" are a serious realistic threat, too, but to tell you the truth, I'm more worried about a true Nuclear weapon than I am a dirty bomb.

[ QUOTE ]
...if the US publicly states that we will hold our elections on Nov 2 unconditionally and under no circumstances will we postpone them due to a terrorist attack...I believe that sends the right message to the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that. But, I think it's prudent to be prepared, too. I'm kinda Kerry-ing this one (flip flopping, except I'll show up to vote). I see pros and cons on each side, but I hadn't consider the message it would send by not budging on the date.
Tenaciously clinging to and sticking with our principles is another thing I firmly believe will strengthen America.

Useful Searches

>
About Us>
>
In May of 1999 CK5 started out as a tribute to America's favorite 4x4 utility truck. Since then it has grown to be
a leader among full size Chevrolet K5 Blazer and GMC Jimmy web sites across the Internet. CK5 has since expanded
to include the C/K series GM Truck and Suburban as well as past and present GM models.
>>
With its technical articles, factory specifications, photo gallery, classifieds, active message forum, product
reviews and original automotive content it's an unbeatable source.